< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: Many Thanks and Some Questions ... by Mike Alexander 27 July 2002 12:17 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
[Luke:] It's interesting that you answer this question in what
seems to be moral philosophical terms (“should be done”). But don’t such terms and, hence, moral
philosophy as their source end up falling into the same quagmire as P. and U. do
(namely that they spend so much time on modes of behavior {the ‘how’ and/or the
‘ought’ of social theory}and praxeological concerns that they forget the “is” of
human affairs primarily and secondarily the “is” and “what” of the natural world
as well)?
Yes, P. and U.
[“can tell you how to do something”]. I concur. What’s neat here is your “but not
why you would want to” clause.
This ‘why’ of yours juxtaposed with your “should” in the last sentence
suggests moral imperative and agency (at least in the case of human
action). It seems to equate higher
causes and factors of determination of either human action or natural processes
with extrinsic moral absolutes (not that this was necessarily your intention at
all in writing this); it does bring up a question on my part – Why should the
categorical question “WHY” imply a moralist’s “SHOULD?”
[Mike:] Why doesn't
always imply should. When why is used in terms of purposeful action, then
should is implied. I am not implying moral agency. I simply wished
to point out that there are important questions that science cannot
answer.
[Luke:] Yet,
even aside from such discussions of moral philosophy in history – variations on
the theme of Catholic Universal History - and Natural Law in the ethical
sense, this WHY/SHOULD juxtaposed relationship is problematic. Clearly the WHY and “WHY YOU WOULD WANT
TO implies the extrinsic determination of human action in history and the
issue of motivation. Neither
of these notions necessarily implies a universal moral qualifier to human
activity over time; instead, “determination” (via evolution and other
macro-cosmic phenomena) and “motivation” (the driving micro-cosmic dynamics of
deep-seated human emotions & psychohistory) shape human action in
history and through that, by shaping the active mental process of
reflective/comparative judgments people make as individuals and via communities
as they encounter new experiences in life, new ways of interacting with their
environment, and new connections they can draw between external phenomena A,B,C
and internal mental phenomena within themselves X,Y,Z, moral universals are
formed.
[Mike:] Some human actions involve motivation and intention. I am
not trying to imply that there is a purpose to human action in
history.
[Luke:] By this (erroneous) I mean, the majority not only got
their “real” facts and truth wrong; but they still have a whole host of “good”
facts plus demonstration/persuasion at their disposal.
Examples: The Galileo versus Church officials
incident; regarding the Ptolemaic model - G. had his evidence and
demonstrations, but so did his opponents – they had their facts, truths, and
ways of
demonstrating ideas. An observer of
that generation may not have been able to tell that Galileo
was “in the right” in spite of this – but he was and the history of knowledge
has proven him right in spite of what
the majority opinion was in those days.
Socrates versus the
Politicians and the Sophists -- Socrates won the
arguments; they – his opponents among the sophists and pol.’s were the majority;
Socrates took the hyssop for it; they won the day as did their view; but I think
it safe to say history proved Socrates – who went against the academic grain of
his time – right, this is at least according to the Platonic version of the
Socrates story
The whole ‘Columbus versus
others who said the world was flat’ story (that’s sometimes told to
children) Again
history proves the individual right and the maj. academic viewpt. of his
generation ;; I realize this story is largely myth, for many in Columbus’s day
and before believed the earth was round; that was not was C. was after with his
voyages, even this fantasy example proves the rule that the majority view of
a generation can be dead wrong in the historical sense of the development of
knowledge over the ages; The agreed-upon view of a majority of scholars in a
given generation can be and sometimes most definitely “is”
wrong.
In
the matter of Galileo, it was the opinion of the Jesuit astronomers (whom the
pope consulted) that Galileo was probably right. The oppenents did not
have evidence and reasoned arguments with which to oppose Galieo. It was
not a scientific matter. The arguments against Galieo were theological in
nature. A modern analogy is the battle between creationism versus
evolution. Evolution is accepted as "true" by scientists today, just as
heliocentrism was in Galileo's time. The argument against evolution (and
against Galileo) is (and was) theological in nature. There is NO
theological support for evolution. It plainly says in the Bible
that God creatred the heavens and the earth--end of argument. Evolution is
wrong because it is not biblical. Similarly, it was generally known in a
scientific sense that the earth was round in Columbus's time. The
arguments for a flat earth were theological in nature. Finally,
Socrates was guilty of corrupting the morals of youth and he was a
subversive. His accusors were perfectly right about him.
[Luke:] I suppose I could have scratched the word “legitimate” from my
point there in that passage. The
reason why I included it and also the word “good” was to make to make a crucial
distinction between true scholars and pseudo intellectuals/ charlatans like Erik
Van Daniken. Because the problem
is: EVD had his “good”
facts/”evidence” and he had his persuasion (that at least worked on the
public who bought his books).
[Mike:] EVD did not any “good”
facts/”evidence”. His argument was similar to that of all
pseudoscientists. He raised a lot of questions and answered. The
whole approach was to cast doubt on accepted ideas. It is simply assumed
that if the accepted explanation is wrong that makes his view right or at least
possible. EVD made no convincing demonstration. Nobody who knew
anything about his subject matter went along with his ideas.
[Luke:] Taking your biblical literalist example, I’d bet
a good lawyer might be able to rhetorically convince this person
(in the Pragamist, Utilitarian sense), beyond a reasonable doubt, to change his
mind on the issue.
[Mike:] No he
could not. To a true believer the Word of God as revealed in Holy
Scripture always trumps mere human words.
[Luke:] … which leads
me to these questions, supposing that “persuasion is everything” in scholarship
(or at least a good chunk of it) when we present our research findings, if your
ideas and arguments about persuasion are correct, why wouldn’t it be just as
good for us to have (say) lawyers give our the presentation of our research
conclusions to the public?
[Mike:] In science, it is not
rhetorical persuasion, but demonstration that is necessary.
And not only demonstration by the presenter of the ideas, but also by trusted
others or ourselves. It is the empirical demonstration that persuades the
scientist. It is the faithfulness to Scripture than persuades the
religious. It is the nature of the evidence as augmented by the rhetorical
skill of the lawyer and well as his grasp of the law that persuades the jury or
judge.
Just as theology is another way of knowing than is
science, legal thinking is also a different way of knowing than sceince. A legal
proof is not the same as a scientific proof. In science a valid
answer is "I don't know". In the law a decision is obtained to every
question posed, the court must make a ruling. That is its
purpose. In many case legal decisions have nothing to do with what is
true. So no, a lawyer would a poor choice for making a scientific argument
(much as a theologian would).
[Luke:] ...the
fact that it’s not just knowing the techniques and methods to use that’s
important in convincing others of one’s ideas; it’s equally important – or
perhaps more important – to find common ground on an issue in terms of
the basic facts that both the presenter and the audience can agree
upon, plus common ideas, shared applied paradigms, and
so forth) before & even while the presentation takes place)
[Mike:] Yes that's
right.
[Luke:] I’d stand by my claim:
persuasion isn’t everything. Our
job as scholars and academics is not about un-restrained PR like that which
comes through on TV commercials; it’s about bringing people to an accurate
understanding of the facts and a to a consensus in shared meaning about agreed
upon real things that thinkers in the past have called
“truth”
[Mike:] I
never said persuasion was everything. I brought persuasion into the issue
to show the importance of empirical demonstration in scientific
persuasion. If nobody ever believes your theories, they die with you and
there is no advancement, thus others must learn of your work: Work! Finish!
Publish! as Faraday put it.
In science,
persuasion requires empirical demonstration, either by
experiment, through prediction, or through
explanation of a large body of observations, including observations not
yet made (which is a form of prediction). It is
the empirical nature of scientific persuasions, with the emphasis on
replication, that makes them much less dependent on
rhetorical power or stylistic features than what lawyers or advertisers
do.
As you
wrote, one cannot bring people to an "accurate understanding of the facts"
and a to a consensus in shared meaning about agreed upon real things
(i.e. the “truth”) if they do not have common ground on the issue
in terms of the basic facts that both the presenter and the audience can
agree upon, plus common ideas, shared applied paradigms,
and so forth.
This is why
scientific persuasion is conducted among other scentists who share certain
paradigms about the utility and value of doing science. It is a waste of
time to try to persuade a person operating out of a religious paradigm,
for example, that his religiously-derived ideas are false. How can
they be? Within his own paradigm they are, by definition,
true.
Mike Alexander, author of Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next 20 years and The Kondratiev Cycle: A generational interpretation http://www.net-link.net/~malexan/STOCK_CYCLES.htm |
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |